| No one would be foolish enough to equate acquittal with actual innocence. Otherwise there would not be learned papers on jury nullification, where the facts mandate conviction, but the jury refuses to convict, or on the baneful effects of the exclusionary rule in sacrificing substantive justice to procedural fairness. You are right, once acquitted, for all intents and purposes before the law, in relation to that crime, you are innocent, and double jeopardy forbids another trial. However, one can be taken to civil court and found liable for a tort action on same evidence, since the standard is "preponderance of evidence" rather than "reasonable doubt". In that case, the way to interpret the actions of the court is to say that you probably did it, but that there is enough uncertainty to shield you from the full rigor of the law........ |
